Romanus Ugwu, Abuja
The Director-General of the All Progressives Congress’ (APC) Progressive Governors’ Forum (PGF), Salihu Moh Lukman, has warned that the continued debate over the legality of the lockdown order to control the spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is becoming a distraction to the government in its effort to contain the pandemic.
Specifically reacting to the standpoint of the trio of Femi Falana, Ebun-Olu Adegborua and Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka, Lukman urged them to stop playing to the gallery, expressing happiness that the state governments were responding in a way that expands the jurisdiction of the lockdown.
“Adegborua had argued that the president is required to invoke his powers under the Constitution to declare a state of emergency, which must be approved by the National Assembly.
“What is the objective of this debate? Is it to strengthen the capacity of our democracy to respond to emergency situations, especially when human life is at great risk on accounts of the outbreak of diseases? Or is it to simply show some legal muscles based on which the actions of the government are delegitimised? How else could government isolate, care and treat victims of COVID-19 in these cities given the scientific evidence that you could be a carrier without showing any sign of symptoms? In other words, everybody could be a carrier.
“Whether lockdown is desirable and the best in the circumstance is immaterial, it would appear to be the substance of the legal arguments being championed by Adegboruwa, Falana, et al. All that is the issue around the debate of what should be the legal requirement for the lockdown of these cities with higher vulnerability to COVID-19 virus is not whether the lockdown is right.
“In fact, Adegboruwa, Falana and virtually all the lawyers expressing reservations about the legality or otherwise of the lockdown as announced by the president are in agreement that there should be lockdown. Their grouse is simply that the president should seek for the approval of the National Assembly as provided under the Constitution,” he noted in the statement he issued in Abuja on Tuesday.
The PGF DG further emphasised in the statement that “all the energy we expend on the question of the legality of decisions of government to lock down these three cities with the highest potential to spread COVID-19 virus to every part of the country may only serve to distract the attention of government from the critical issue of ensuring effective response to contain the spread of COVID-19.
“Rather than asking the question of whether locking down Abuja, Lagos and Abeokuta is sufficient to contain the spread of COVID-19, we are seeking to undermine the government. Good enough, our state governments are responding in a way that expands the jurisdiction of the lockdown to cover virtually all parts of the country,” the statement read.
Reacting further, he wrote that “if in 2010, our activist lawyers, including Falana, could come up with the doctrine of necessity in the face of the refusal of late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua to transmit a letter informing the National Assembly about his medical trip outside Nigeria based on which the then Vice President, Goodluck Jonathan, could be empowered to act as president, isn’t the same principle of doctrine of necessity more urgently needed now that human life is at risk, so much that we could with all certainty argue that any meeting of the National Assembly is even a potential danger?
“…Certainly, Adegborunwa, Falana, Soyinka and all those criticising the current lockdown of Abuja, Lagos and Abeokuta, may have some unselfish reasons to express opposition.
“So long as, however, such opposition is not substantively disputing the efficacy of the lockdown as a strategic requirement for ensuring enforcement of isolation and social distancing in order to contain the spread of COVID-19 in the country, it simply projects behavioural discrepancy which conflict with the new emergency timeline that COVID-19 imposes on the world,” Lukman argued in the statement.